300 So.3d 589
Fla.2020Background
- Jeffrey Atwater was convicted of first‑degree murder and robbery and sentenced to death; defense counsel conceded the evidence established at least second‑degree murder during closing.
- Atwater filed a fifth successive postconviction motion under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851 asserting counsel conceded guilt without his consent and invoking McCoy v. Louisiana to seek a new trial.
- The trial court dismissed the motion as untimely under rule 3.851(d)(1), finding the (d)(2)(B) exception inapplicable because McCoy had not been held retroactive before the filing; alternatively, the court found McCoy inapplicable on the merits because Atwater did not allege he expressly objected to the concession.
- The trial court relied on Florida v. Nixon for the proposition that when a defendant neither consents nor objects, counsel may concede guilt without an explicit consent requirement.
- Atwater appealed the dismissal and the denial of a case management conference/evidentiary hearing; the Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding McCoy did not apply on the pleaded facts and any failure to hold the conference was harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / retroactivity under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851(d)(2)(B) | Atwater invoked the (d)(2)(B) exception based on McCoy as a new constitutional rule | The exception requires the right already be held retroactive before filing; McCoy has not been held retroactive | Court found it unnecessary to resolve retroactivity but noted trial court concluded (d)(2)(B) inapplicable; affirmed on other grounds |
| Applicability of McCoy (concession over defendant's objection) | Counsel conceded guilt without Atwater's consent; McCoy requires reversal when counsel concedes over defendant's insistence on innocence | Atwater did not allege he ever expressly asserted innocence or objected; Nixon permits concession when defendant neither consents nor objects | McCoy did not apply; Atwater failed to allege an express insistence on innocence or objection, so claim facially insufficient |
| Duty to consult / ineffective‑assistance theory based on lack of discussion | Counsel failed to discuss concession strategy with Atwater, violating his autonomy and entitling him to relief | Duty to consult exists (Strickland/Nixon) but failure to consult is not the McCoy structural error absent an express insistence on innocence | Claim framed as McCoy failed; lack of consultation alone did not trigger McCoy relief |
| Failure to hold case management conference / evidentiary hearing | Atwater requested a stay and evidentiary hearing | Trial court treated claim as facially insufficient, so conference/hearing not needed | Failure to hold the conference/hearing was harmless error given facial insufficiency of the claim |
Key Cases Cited
- McCoy v. Louisiana, 138 S. Ct. 1500 (2018) (counsel may not concede client’s guilt over client’s express insistence on innocence)
- Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (2004) (no blanket rule requiring explicit consent when defendant neither consents nor objects)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (effective assistance standard and duty to consult on important decisions)
- Dailey v. State, 279 So. 3d 1208 (Fla. 2019) (standard of review for summary rejection of postconviction claims)
- Rivera v. State, 260 So. 3d 920 (Fla. 2018) (harmless‑error analysis regarding failure to hold procedural hearings)